logo
Sydney cleric being sued for alleged antisemitism says case is an existential battle ‘between Islam and unbelievers'

Sydney cleric being sued for alleged antisemitism says case is an existential battle ‘between Islam and unbelievers'

The Guardian3 hours ago

A Sydney Islamic cleric being sued in the federal court for alleged racial discrimination of Jewish people has described his case as an existential battle 'between Islam and unbelievers'.
Wissam Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, is being sued by Australia's peak Jewish body over a series of lectures he gave in November 2023, in which he is alleged to have maligned Jewish people as 'vile', 'treacherous' and cowardly.
The lectures quoted ayat and hadith from the Qur'an about Jews in Medina in the 7th century and, the federal court claim alleges, made derogatory generalisations about Jewish people, including that they are 'wicked and scheming' and 'love wealth'.
The claim, brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, alleges Haddad breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act – prohibiting offensive behaviour based on race or ethnic origin – during the sermons delivered at the Al Madina Dawah Centre (AMDC) in Bankstown in November 2023, speeches subsequently broadcast online.
But, Haddad's defence case argues, his sermons were delivered in 'good faith' as religious and historical instruction. If his sermons are found to breach 18C, then, he argues, the law is unconstitutional because it restricts the free exercise of religion.
On Tuesday morning, the long-running dispute, which failed to find resolution at conciliation, comes before Justice Angus Stewart in the federal court, in a case set to test the limits of religious expression and hate speech under Australian law.
The court is likely to be asked to adjudicate whether Haddad's sermons, in which he quotes the Qur'an and offers interpretation of it, amount to incitement or are protected religious expression.
Ahead of the trial, Haddad, argued on Instagram that the case was existential for the practice of Islam in Australia.
'What I am currently facing in the federal court is not an issue of Abu Ousayd or Al Madina Dawah Centre versus the Jewish lobby … rather, it's a battle between Islam and kuffar,' he said, using an Arabic word, usually translated as 'unbelievers'.
He said the claim against him sought to criminalise Islamic scripture.
'They wish to take and make those ayat and hadith and historic accounts that speak about the Jews: to what they see as insulting, they seek to make it criminal.'
Ayat are verses in the Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, while hadith are reports attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Two prominent members of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim and Robert Goot, have sought an injunction from the court ordering the speeches still online be removed, and banning Haddad and his centre from publishing similar content online in the future.
The ECAJ claim has also asked the court to order Haddad's centre to publish a 'corrective notice' on its social media pages. It has applied for the cost of its legal action to be covered, but it has not sought damages or compensation.
In a statement, Wertheim said the ECAJ had attempted 'in good faith' to resolve the matter by conciliation through the Australian Human Rights Commission, but that attempts to broker a resolution failed.
He said the ECAJ took the matter to court 'to defend the honour of our community, and as a warning to deter others seeking to mobilise racism in order to promote their political views'.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'We are all free to observe our faith and traditions within the bounds of Australian law, and that should mean we do not bring the hatreds, prejudices and bigotry of overseas conflicts and societies into Australia.'
In his defence documents, Haddad argues his lectures 'were not reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish people in Australia' given their context and audience.
He said his sermons were delivered in 'good faith' and 'for the genuine purpose of … delivering religious historical and educational lectures … to congregants of the AMDC'.
He said he had given some of the addresses in response to requests from the Islamic community 'to provide sermons which address the Gaza War, and engaging in political commentary on the Gaza War from a religious perspective'.
However, his defence states, if the court finds his sermons have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, he argues the law is unconstitutional under section 116 of the constitution, which protects the 'free exercise of any religion'.
Both Haddad and the ECAJ will rely on lay witnesses and expert testimony in the week-long court case. The ECAJ has enlisted professor of theology at Notre Dame University, Gabriel Reynolds; Haddad will call Sheikh Adel Ibrahim from the Greenacre Prayers Hall in Sydney to give evidence.
Haddad has never been charged with any terrorism-related offences, but has previously boasted of his friendship with Australian Islamic State fighters Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, and Briton Anjem Choudary, an extremist preacher jailed for life in the UK last year.
A former Asio spy who infiltrated Haddad's organisation between 2016 and 2023 told the ABC's Four Corners program that young people in Haddad's prayer centre were being indoctrinated into supporting Islamic State.
Section 18C is the most contested and controversial section of the Racial Discrimination Act. Several high-profile cases have seen it argued the section restricts freedom of speech and political communication in Australia.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Eric Adams signs order adopting controversial definition of antisemitism
Eric Adams signs order adopting controversial definition of antisemitism

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Eric Adams signs order adopting controversial definition of antisemitism

Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, signed an executive order this week adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism, as Israel's invasion of Gaza and alleged antisemitism continued to dominate the city's mayoral election. The mayor signed the order, which requires city agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's description of antisemitism, at a synagogue in Manhattan on Sunday. Adams described antisemitism as 'a vile disease that's been spreading across our nation and our city'. Critics of the definition say it is designed to protect Israel by punishing legitimate criticism. Examples of antisemitism that accompany the formal definition include 'claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor' and 'applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation'. The lead author of the definition has spoken out against its use to suppress free speech. The move comes two weeks ahead of the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, where a number of high profile candidates are running against Adams. Support for Israel and the city's Jewish population has become a key issue, with the frontrunners holding starkly different views on Israel's war on Gaza. Adams, a deeply unpopular first-term mayor whose time in office has been blighted by accusations of accepting bribes, has positioned himself as a staunch defender of Israel as he seeks to win election. He referenced the recent murder of two Israeli embassy staff members in Washington and the attack on a crowd of people in Colorado who were raising awareness for Israeli hostages in Gaza before signing the order. 'Since Hamas' terror attacks on October 7 2023, we have seen this hateful rhetoric become normalized on our campuses, in our communities, and online as antisemitic propaganda far too often masquerades as 'activism'. When Jewish New Yorkers make up 11% of the population but more than half of all hate crimes, we know this moment demands bold, decisive action to crack down on anti-Jewish hatred,' Adams said. Antisemitic and Islamophobic violence have risen since the Hamas attack and Israel's response, and Adams has criticized pro-Palestinian demonstrations which have taken place on university campuses and around the city. Adams was elected as a Democrat, but is running as an independent candidate in this year's election. His main rivals are Andrew Cuomo, the former governor of New York who resigned in 2021 amid accusations of sexual harassment, and Zohran Mamdani, a New York state representative. In 2021, Orthodox Jewish support helped Adams win the Democratic primary, but with Cuomo, Adams is up against a fellow staunch supporter of Israel. Last year, Cuomo joined Benjamin Netanyahu's legal defense team after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who has long been outspoken on Palestinian rights, has described the situation in Gaza, where Israel has killed more than 50,000 people, as 'genocide' and said he would have Netanyahu arrested if he came to the city. Adams signed the executive order at a synagogue in Manhattan on Sunday. He then sat for a discussion with Phil McGraw, a television personality and Trump supporter, about the threat of antisemitism, in which he criticized anti-Israel demonstrations at universities.

How another Labor immigration blunder has allowed a vile child sex offender to remain in Australia
How another Labor immigration blunder has allowed a vile child sex offender to remain in Australia

Daily Mail​

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

How another Labor immigration blunder has allowed a vile child sex offender to remain in Australia

The Albanese government took too long to scrap the visa of a migrant who performed an indecent act in front of a child, so he can stay in Australia, a court has ruled. The Federal Court decision is the latest in a string of immigration policy blunders to weigh on the party since 2023 - causing ex-Immigration Minister Andrew Giles to be demoted - though it seems it didn't harm Labor's performance at the March election. Federal Court judge Christopher Horan found a decision to deport the man, known as XMBQ, was unlawful because there was an 'unreasonable' delay between the appeals tribunal deciding the man could stay and termination of his visa. The ruling, first reported by The Australian, could set a precedent requiring immigration ministers to make decisions within a particular timeframe. Giles - now replaced by Tony Burke - previously came under fire for being caught off guard by the High Court's ruling in November 2023 that indefinite immigration detention was illegal, resulting in the release of more than a hundred criminals. Later, he was criticised over his Ministerial guideline, known as Direction 99, that stated a migrant's family connections to Australia and how long they have lived here should be considered in potential deportation cases, despite a criminal's rap sheet. Giles moved to cancel dozens of visas after it emerged that violent offenders were using the measure to avoid deportation. In the latest case XMBQ, a Somali man, had convictions for kicking a police officer in the face and performing a sex act in front of a 29-year-old woman and a 13-year-old girl on public transport. Lawyers for XMBQ challenged whether the former Immigration Minister's intervention in his case was legal. Giles cancelled the Somali man's visa on June 8, 2024 after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided he should be allowed to stay in April 2021. Justice Horan said the delay between the appeal and Giles's decision was far too long, ruling in the favour of XMBQ. 'If the minister is to exercise the power to set aside the original decision and cancel the visa, the minister must do so within a reasonable time,' the judgment said. 'Otherwise, the connection with the original decision as the object of the power will be lost, and it can no longer be said that the minister is addressing or responding to the state of affairs produced by or resulting from the original decision.' Immigration law specialist Simon Jeans said that although Giles had the power to cancel this visa it 'was a risk' and a 'decision [made] in haste' as he was under pressure to save his job. He suggested it would have been less risky for the Immigration Department to cancel XMBQ's visa rather than the minister intervening. XMBQ was born in Somalia in the 1960s before fleeing to Lebanon in 1993. He arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2004. XMBQ was placed on the sex offenders register for 15 years after pleading guilty to the public exposure charges in June 2017. In December 2017, his visa was cancelled by a delegate of the immigration minister but this was later overturned in the Federal Court. Lawyers for the man claimed Giles's decision to cancel his visa had been impacted by XMBQ being charged with two counts of rape, although he was not convicted. Justice Horan rejected this claim. The Albanese government and Mr Giles suffered a similar blow in January this year when a Bhutan-born man who attacked his wife with a meat cleaver was allowed to remain in Australia by the Federal Court. It ruled Mr Giles had made multiple 'jurisdictional errors' by overturning an appeals decision that the man could remain in Australia, because he did not consider the effect of deportation on his children and his stateless person status.

Tasmanians face a fourth election in seven years – but here are two alternatives to fix the political impasse
Tasmanians face a fourth election in seven years – but here are two alternatives to fix the political impasse

The Guardian

time3 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Tasmanians face a fourth election in seven years – but here are two alternatives to fix the political impasse

After a week of drama, the political future of Tasmania could look starkly different by the end of today. The state may be about to get its fourth election in seven years. But there are a couple of alternatives to consider. Let's walk through them. On Tuesday last week, the state opposition leader, Dean Winter, surprised many by moving a motion of no confidence in the Liberal premier, Jeremy Rockliff. The motion was tabled at the end of a budget supply speech. The motion was ostensibly about the budget, arguing Rockliff had wrecked the state's finances, planned to sell public assets and had mismanaged a crucial ferries project. The Greens supported Labor's motion, but unsuccessfully pushed for it to also touch on the government's response to gambling harm and the proposed AFL stadium. After days of debate, the motion succeeded by a razor-thin margin: 18-17. This appears the most likely outcome. After the vote on Thursday, Rockliff said he planned to visit the state's governor on Tuesday to request a statewide poll. But this won't happen until some important business is taken care of. State parliament will resume on Tuesday morning to pass routine supply bills that are essential to keep government departments running. If an election is called later in the day, then Rockliff would lead the Liberal party. The date of any potential election is not yet known. Potentially. The governor, Barbara Baker, is not obliged to accept Rockliff's request. She could adopt two alternatives. Baker could instead request the Liberal party room elect a different leader to avoid an election just 15 months after the last state poll. On Monday, some Liberal party figures were quoted in the Mercury calling for Rockliff to resign and be replaced by the former senator Eric Abetz. Guy Barnett and Michael Ferguson have also been touted as potential leaders. But so far, Rockliff has refused to resign and the party room has expressed its support for him. Baker could also ask the Labor opposition to test its numbers and seek support from a collection of minor parties and independents. Theoretically, this is possible. At the last election, Tasmanians elected 14 Liberals, 10 Labor, five Greens, three MPs from the Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) and three independents. Some call this a rainbow parliament, others call it chaos. But Winter has repeatedly ruled out a power-sharing arrangements with the Greens, despite the minor party being a willing participant. So this appears unlikely. The AFL's proposed stadium is a controversial issue in Tasmania but both the Liberals and Labor remain committed to its construction. One of the conditions set by the AFL for a new team in Tasmania was a roofed stadium, but the expensive project – set to cost about $1bn – faces opposition from some in Tasmania, who instead have called for the money to be spent elsewhere. If an election is called, the stadium would be central issue along with the state's finances and help shape the outcome of the next parliament. An election is likely to delay parliamentary approvals for the stadium for several months. These delays could cost the state government if approval is ultimately granted and the Tasmanian team is forced to play at Bellerive Oval, as it would need to pay fines to the AFL.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store